In Gittin Daf 48a we bring a proof to the argument between Reb Yochanan and Reish Lakish.
The second TOH SHEMA says that if someone bought two trees, he can bring the Bikkurim but he can't say the Possuk of HA'ARETZ ASHER NOSATOH LI. This is Mashma that if he had 3 he can, because he gets the land free with the trees. But since we're talking about when Yovel applies, he isn't Koneh the land and only gets the trees and he can say the Pessukim because KINYAN PEIROS K'KINYAN HAGUF.
I have two similar questions:
1.The beginning of this Mishnah from Biccurim is a Proof to Reish Lakish as if he has the two trees and he can't say the Pessukim so this seems to be KINYAN PEIROS LAV K'KINYAN HAGUF?
2. The Mishnah itself only says the beginning about two trees, the three trees is only Mashmah (although it is a Halachah in another Mishnah as is seen in Tosafos) so why say that, really we should say the beginning of the mishnah and bring a proof to Reish Lakish rather than Reb Yochanan?
Meir Kahan, age 13 (my father said that i could ask you questions as he often e-mails questions to you)
Hello there and thanks for your wonderful question. I'm sorry about the delay in answering as I was ill for two weeks. In my opinion, the most important point is, a person who buys two trees has rights to the fruits, but does not own any land. He therefore does not say Mikra Bikurim even according to Rebbi Yochanan. This will change if he bought three trees, thus he now owns the land. According to Rebbi Yochanan, even if the ownership of the land entitles him to the fruit only (as is the case when Yovel was in effect), he still says Mikra Bikurim. According to Reish Lakish, Mikra Bikurim can be said only in an instance where one has complete ownership of the land. But both agree that without owning land (even with having rights to the fruit) one does not say Mikra Bikurim. Thus the Mishnah discussing the status when buying two trees is not relevant.
I hope this clarifies the issue. If not please feel free to respond.
All the best.